ADC Rejects FG’s ₦19trn Estimate For Atiku’s Petrol Subsidy Plan

The African Democratic Congress (ADC) has rejected the Presidency’s claim that a proposed production-based fuel subsidy by its presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, could cost Nigeria about ₦19.1 trillion annually.

The opposition party argued that the figure was based on assumptions that did not accurately reflect the structure of Atiku’s proposal, insisting that the former vice president did not advocate a permanent $40-per-barrel subsidy.

According to Ireporter Online, the ADC made its position known in a statement issued by its National Publicity Secretary, Bolaji Abdullahi, following the Presidency’s criticism of the proposed policy.

The party explained that the ₦19.1 trillion estimate appeared to be based on an assumption that crude oil would sell for about $80 per barrel, with the government subsidising a $40 difference. It challenged the Presidency to provide the basis for arriving at the figure.

Under Atiku’s proposal, the ADC said the government would determine a benchmark crude price at the beginning of each budget cycle, with the benchmark linked to a targeted maximum domestic price for petroleum products. Government intervention would only apply when market prices exceeded the benchmark and would operate within a predetermined fiscal limit.

The party maintained that the proposal was fundamentally different from Nigeria’s former import-dependent petrol subsidy regime, describing it instead as a production-linked intervention designed to encourage domestic refining and reduce reliance on imported petroleum products.

The ADC said the proposed system would involve tracking crude oil from allocation through refinery intake, production and domestic distribution. It added that the process would be supported by verified refinery capacity, audited production figures, digital monitoring, domestic supply requirements and penalties for diversion.

The opposition party also questioned the government’s own petroleum-related expenditures, citing figures from NNPC’s audited 2024 accounts. It noted that about ₦7.13 trillion was recorded under “Energy Security”, while broader petroleum-related expenditures and receivables amounted to approximately ₦17.5 trillion, depending on the accounting classification.

The ADC stressed that it was not describing those expenditures as conventional fuel subsidies but argued that Nigerians deserved greater clarity on what the funds represented, what they achieved and the economic value generated from them.

The party further referenced the Federal Government’s Deep Offshore Oil and Gas Projects Incentives (Tax Remission) Order 2026, which provides production tax credits of up to $11.50 per barrel for qualifying projects.

It questioned why the government could justify incentives for upstream oil production to attract investment while rejecting a controlled production incentive designed to support domestic refineries and lower fuel prices.

According to the party, the Presidency’s ₦19.1 trillion calculation also failed to factor in potential foreign-exchange savings that could result from increased domestic refining.

The ADC argued that greater local production would reduce petroleum imports, conserve foreign exchange, retain more economic value within Nigeria and potentially create opportunities for export earnings. It also said lower fuel prices could have wider effects on transportation, food distribution, agriculture, manufacturing, construction, logistics and household purchasing power.

The party maintained that Atiku’s proposal should not be viewed as a return to the previous subsidy system, which it acknowledged was vulnerable to opacity, import arbitrage and unverifiable claims.

Instead, the ADC said the proposed intervention would be capped, audited and traceable, tied directly to domestic production and gradually reduced as local refining becomes more competitive.

The opposition party therefore challenged the Presidency to consider not only the projected fiscal cost of the proposal but also the economic cost of maintaining the current system, including increased transportation and food distribution expenses, foreign-exchange pressures and reduced industrial competitiveness.

The ADC argued that the central issue should be what government chooses to subsidise, why such intervention is necessary and who ultimately benefits from it.

The party insisted that Nigerians need access to cheaper energy and argued that the country’s crude oil resources should generate greater value for Nigerians through domestic production and refining.